Why?

[Sphinx777]

 

[Britt333]

I dont know...

 

[BobW188]

Because.

 

[Received]

Why not?

 

[SithDoughnut]

42

 

[tulipbee]

as it is

 

[1Prophetess]

Because He loved us!

 

[Dark_Lite]

Why not?

Some men see things as they are, and ask "why?" I dream of things that never were, and ask, "why not?"

(paraphrased a bit)

 

[Bushido216]

Because I said so.

That's why.

 

[Chesterton]

Before asking "why", one must re-personify the more or less parallel quintessences which necessarily tend toward reconciliation of all subsets of phenomenology requisite for bringing to bear upon same, the qualification of which becomes defensible only in terms of supplementing such issues for which the conversant paradigms allow.

 

[tulipbee]

Before asking "why", one must re-personify the more or less parallel quintessences which necessarily tend toward reconciliation of all subsets of phenomenology requisite for bringing to bear upon same, the qualification of which becomes defensible only in terms of supplementing such issues for which the conversant paradigms allow.

huh?

 

[david_x]

To win.

 

[Gracchus]

Why?

Probably because there is money to be made.

 

[Bushido216]

Before asking "why", one must re-personify the more or less parallel quintessences which necessarily tend toward reconciliation of all subsets of phenomenology requisite for bringing to bear upon same, the qualification of which becomes defensible only in terms of supplementing such issues for which the conversant paradigms allow.

Maaaaattttttrrrrrriiiiiixxxxx.

 

[1Prophetess]

Before asking "why", one must re-personify the more or less parallel quintessences which necessarily tend toward reconciliation of all subsets of phenomenology requisite for bringing to bear upon same, the qualification of which becomes defensible only in terms of supplementing such issues for which the conversant paradigms allow.

Peradventure, delimiting or qualifying an examination may be counterproductive. It decidedly constrains creativity and possibly annihilates elucidation. If the intention of the progenitor inherently presumed unrestricted possibilities, should restrictions be instituted? May it be presumptuous to procrastinate by responding with rejoinders challenging the hypothesis thereby suggesting or presupposing the initiator erred in soliciting the fundamental examination and conjecturing negligent premeditation or, alternatively, nonspecific rationalization or ludicrousness? Unresponsiveness and challenging examination deviates from evidential or explanatory rationality and maneuvers toward justification of a proposition (an epistemology theory) or possibly specification to absurdity—both tedious and lackluster cultivations of circuitous and protracted argumentation (admittedly my prejudiced observation). Conversely, generating an intellectual or empirical observation from intuitive assumptions introspectively encourages reflective consideration and possibly augments comprehension conceivably for the enhancement of philosophical principles possibly extrapolating on metacognition—a theory insufficiently examined personally yet intriguing. Additionally, introducing simplistically conceptualized, imaginative, visionary presuppositions stimulates rumination and therefore enlightenment possibly initiating metamorphosis. Consequently, the previously recommended methodology generates pleasurable enlightenment into humanity’s acuity, intellectuality, perceptiveness and imaginative perspicacity. Creating an imaginative hypothesis and proceeding with exposition is imaginative, enthralling, extraordinarily fascinating and congenially engaging; alternately, deliberation of the investigator’s maladroit presentation or argumentation for clarification seems invalidating intellectually and generally negates discourse. Preferentially, the imagination is unadulterated and effervescent which absolutely contributes to enlightenment, elucidation and creativity individually and possibly communally.



Do you not agree?

 

[Chesterton]

Do you not agree?

Trans-historically, agreement versus disagreement is a quasi-suggestive dichotomy unrelated to itself within the context of the manifold literal approximations which may or may not be construed perspicaciously vis-a-vis their inherently sub-decisive properties.

 

[1Prophetess]

Creativity is far superior to exacting nuances and arguments. And "unrelated to itself" may better be stated "each other" because a single dichotomy cannot be unrelated to itself, and I believe you refer to "agreement versus disagreement."

It is my humble opinion that, to derail a topic by requesting specificity, is to destroy it. Better to answer it with even a feeble interpretation than destroy creativity.

JMHO

 

[daniel777]

Creativity is far superior to exacting nuances and arguments. And "unrelated to itself" may better be stated "each other" because a single dichotomy cannot be unrelated to itself, and I believe you refer to "agreement versus disagreement."

It is my humble opinion that, to derail a topic by requesting specificity, is to destroy it. Better to answer it with even a feeble interpretation than destroy creativity.

JMHO

interesting... then the answer is undoubtedly peanuts.

 

[Received]

Hegel alert!